Why don't 'we' believe?

strobe

Pretty straight forward question (I think).

Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God?

Why are non-Christians, non-Christians?

omen80

The question should be why do christians believe in god? It makes more sense not to believe.

Helix

why are you a non hindu?

Short, very general answer: you were born into a predominantly christian society. If you were born in a predominantly hindu one, youd be hindu

Fanny Cradock

If you guys want to discuss why there are believers then take it to the A&A forum. This thread has a specific angle which both Helix and omen80 seemed to have missed.

Helix

ok then, reshuffle my answer

Hindus dont believe in christianity because they are raised in another religion, one that they believe to be correct, as opposed to christianity that they do not believe to be correct. Its environmental for the most part
Hows that fanny?

Fanny Cradock

Helix wrote: »

Hows that fanny?

Mercy! Read Strobe's question. Next off topic post gets deleted.

Shield

May I give a sample answer?

They don't believe Jesus was the son of God because...

Their religious beliefs dictate that God had no son.

Saying that they were raised not to is a bit like saying "because they don't" and that doesn't really help the OP understand why. If you give a solid reason, like the one above, it tells the OP that there are belief systems which teach that God had no son, and gives him/her something to follow up on.

I hope this is seen as helpful and is in no way intended to be back-seat modding.

omen80

I'm actually a little confused by the question......is the OP a christian or not? It asks "why don't 'we' believe?" in the title but goes on to ask why non-christians are non-christians in the body?

Shield

Yes - "Christians" as in believers that Christ was the son of God, redeemer of mankind, and so on. It's still part of the overall question as far as I can see.

richymcdermott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI

challengemaster

strobe wrote: »

Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God?

Hard to believe someone is the son of something that doesn't exist.

Pretty simple answer, I think.

Fanny Cradock

OK, "environmental", "geographic" and "socio-religious" are all fine answers. But they are answers we have heard before. If you want to dewl just on this angle - which presupposes that there is no God - then the A&A forum is exactly the place to bring this up.

While we can all agree that the above explanations have validity - at least in some cases - I take the question to be asked of Christians from a theological perspective. That is why your posts were off topic.

omen80

psni wrote: »

Yes - "Christians" as in believers that Christ was the son of God, redeemer of mankind, and so on. It's still part of the overall question as far as I can see.

Eh..I know what a christian is but thanks for being patronising anyway. I was merely trying to establish if the OP was a christian or not and what "we" refers to in the title question.

Helix

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, "environmental", "geographic" and "socio-religious" are all fine answers. But they are answers we have heard before. If you want to dewl just on this angle - which presupposes that there is no God - then the A&A forum is exactly the place to bring this up.

While we can all agree that the above explanations have validity - at least in some cases - I take the question to be asked of Christians from a theological perspective. That is why your posts were off topic.

My answer makes no suppositions about there being or not being a god

Shield

omen80 wrote: »

Eh..I know what a christian is but thanks for being patronising anyway.

Apologies if it came off as patronising. Not intended at all.

Fanny Cradock

omen80 wrote: »

Eh..I know what a christian is but thanks for being patronising anyway. I was merely trying to establish if the OP was a christian or not and what "we" refers to in the title question.

Strobe is an atheist. I gather "we" refers to non-Christians and is asked from the Christian perspective.

StupidLikeAFox

I think what the OP is trying to say is:

If the christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, how come people from all around the world do not believe it? If its true then why isnt it universal worldwide?

georgieporgy

strobe wrote: »

Pretty straight forward question (I think).

Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God?

Why are non-Christians, non-Christians?

Most atheists on this forum are ex catholics who say to themselves "there is no God" so they can stifle the objection of their conscience when they wish to live in sin. (appologies to real cradle atheists)

Hindus live in a part of the world where there are laws forbidding conversion. The threat of being burnt alive (in this life) serves as a handy inducement to keep your head in the sand.

Memnoch

georgieporgy wrote: »

Most atheists on this forum are ex catholics who say to themselves "there is no God" so they can stifle the objection of their conscience when they wish to live in sin. (appologies to real cradle atheists)

Hindus live in a part of the world where there are laws forbidding conversion. The threat of being burnt alive (in this life) serves as a handy inducement to keep your head in the sand.

This is utter nonsense. Hindu's have just as wide a spectrum of belief and practice as Christians.

While it may be fair to say that India is on the whole a more religious country than Ireland, there are plenty of non-practising Hindus and even amongst the religious the strength of belief varies hugely, like any other religion really.

Fanny is right that the OP's question hasn't really been answered by any of the posts.

Though it seems a sort of a round about way of asking, that with all these different religions, all claiming they are right and their God is the one true god, how can you objectively tell who is right and who isn't, cause ye can't all be right, religions are sort of mutually exclusive that way.

I doubt that we'll get a satisfactory answer to this though.

PDN

ColHol wrote: »

I think what the OP is trying to say is:

If the christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, how come

You can use that argument against anything.

Unless 100% of the world's population believe something then it isn't true?

prinz

ColHol wrote: »

I think what the OP is trying to say is:
If the christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, how come people from all around the world do not believe it? If its true then why isnt it universal worldwide?

You don't have to bring Hindus or Zoroastrians are anyone else into it whatsoever. The guy sitting beside you on the bus in Athlone or wherever might not believe it. Even in Jesus' time there were people who heard the message directly and refused for whatever reason to believe. Is it really any suprise that 2,000 odd years later there would still be people who wouldn't believe? Jesus called people to follow Him, He didn't set up camp in one city and refuse to move on until everyone in it believed. Jesus acknowledged that there would be those who wouldn't be convinced for whatever reason.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+8%3A4-15&version=NIV

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

You don't have to bring Hindus or Zoroastrians are anyone else into it whatsoever. The guy sitting beside you on the bus in Athlone or wherever might not believe it. Even in Jesus' time there were people who heard the message directly and refused for whatever reason to believe. Is it really any suprise that 2,000 odd years later there would still be people who wouldn't believe? Jesus called people to follow Him, He didn't set up camp in one city and refuse to move on until everyone in it believed. Jesus acknowledged that there would be those who wouldn't be convinced for whatever reason.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+8%3A4-15&version=NIV

Then the theology starts:) Some would say one only comes to Christ from God drawing you. John 6 is a good place to see this.

John 6 wrote:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

I think this is a good place to start. Some would say that it is God who finds us, rather than us find God. Its a very interesting discussion topic. I'd love to get the view of our regular theologically literate folk here.

Questions it raises in me are:
Does this draw have to be some kind of divine intervention or can it be a blessing through your parents? I.E. Is being raised by Christian parents a generational blessing. Now we know that people raised by Christian parents (not talking about cultural 'Christians'), are probably more likely to accept Christ themselves, but there are A LOT of people who don't follow in their parents footsteps. So is it a case that God is directly drawing some and not others etc? Or is the fact that you have been given the Christian upbringing the 'draw' in the first place, one that you choose to reject of accept etc. Is it both? i.e. Sometimes the draw is direct intervention, and other times its a generational blessing etc.

I think the above is a good place to start.

Fanny Cradock

I don't think there is one answer to the question, even from a theological perspective.

My own opinion, which is based upon the belief that there is a God and he desires relationship with us, is that many people don't engage with God on a level beyond intellectual arguments. Some people don't even manage to get this far. Mostly God is a series of propositions to be refuted or accepted, which is to say nothing about the truth of his existence. Consequently, there is a rather large piece of the puzzle missing if one only engages with God on this propositional level. In some respects, this is comparable to talking about music rather than listening to it and experiencing it.

I would not be surprised to find many non-believers seriously challenge their position if they chose to engage the whole God question on a level that they had otherwise never been unwilling to consider. In this regard, I'm reminded of shows like The Monastery, The Monastery Revised and The Big Silence.

Zombrex

There are a few answers, depending on who 'we' is.

Non-Christian theists don't believe in Jesus and Christianity because they already have a supernatural system that fits their needs, and as such would see little reason for changing to another system unless they encounter some significant issue with their religion.

Atheists are harder to explain as they don't have any religion. Atheists of course can be divided up further into other sub-sets. For example those who believe in New Age systems such as 'personal angels' can be explained using the same reason as the Hindu, they have found as supernatural system that works for them.

Atheists who reject all supernatural explanations of agency in nature are going against natural intuition, and tend to have strong rational reasons for that (reasons they often have to keep reminding themselves of), such as appeals to evolutionary biology or appeals to similarities between religions, or experiences they have themselves where they realized from a sort of external view point that they were participating in supernatural thinking.

It is debatable whether atheists simply have the religious thinking intuition turned off in their brains. This would seem a pretty reasonable answer to why atheists find it relatively easy to think in ways that don't require supernatural agency in nature and why theists find it very difficult. But the support for this notion is still primitive, so I would be cautious about accepting this notion without more evidence.

murphthesmurf

I'm a non believer, so can answer the question from my point of view if thats any help. My parents both believed in God, but were not church going people. This is true for all my relatives. I made up my own mind as I grew up, I was taught religious education at school which taught about christianity and all the other religions.
I decided Jesus was not the son of God, as I decided there was no God, is the simple answer. This would be true for 99% of non believers. Its the obvious reasons that made me believe this, as in no proof etc etc.
Some religions believe in the same God but not that jesus was the sun of God eg Jews (I think ). If I were to believe in God, I would still find it incredibly difficult to believe that Jesus was his son.
Jesus's time was a time when people believed many many different religious idea's. People believed in Witchcraft for over a thousand yrs after this time, which shows how easily people were led to believe things.
One man, who was a great story teller and preecher, who managed to get a few followers who were also good preachers and story tellers, could back then have pulled this kind of thing off.
Its a difficult question to answer without being too obvious, although the answer is very obvious really. How can someone believe that Jesus is the son of God, if they don't believe in God in the 1st place.

PDN

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I decided Jesus was not the son of God, as I decided there was no God, is the simple answer. This would be true for 99% of non believers.

No, it wouldn't. The majority of people who don't believe in Jesus are in fact believers in God - such as Muslims or Hindus.

strobe

Sorry, I could have been clearer in the OP.

By 'we' I meant all non-Christians {Fanny is right btw, I'm an atheist for anyone that was wondering}. I was mainly (but not exclusively, so if non-believers want to give 'secular' reasons I don't have any problem with that) looking for answers from a Christian theological perspective. I think it is fair to say that most people nowadays would have heard of Christianity and know the claims it makes. So why does someone who hears the Gospel and still doesn't believe not believe? Shouldn't there not be some 'miraculous power' in it so that people will believe. Before someone brings in free will, I do not believe that would contravene free will anymore than turning wine into water to convince people to believe would.

Just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

(I'm not sure if that makes things less or more clear......?)

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

Sorry, I could have been clearer in the OP.

By 'we' I meant all non-Christians {Fanny is right btw, I'm an atheist for anyone that was wondering}. I was mainly (but not exclusively, so if non-believers want to give 'secular' reasons I don't have any problem with that) looking for answers from a Christian theological perspective. I think it is fair to say that most people nowadays would have heard of Christianity and know the claims it makes. So why does someone who hears the Gospel and still doesn't believe not believe? Shouldn't there not be some 'miraculous power' in it so that people will believe. Before someone brings in free will, I do not believe that would contravene free will anymore than turning wine into water to convince people to believe would.

Just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

(I'm not sure if that makes things less or more clear......?)

I think its a great topic for discussion, but I wouldn't expect a definitive answer or consensus by the end (You never know I suppose). Hopefully you'll have enough source material to mull over though.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Pretty straight forward question (I think). Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God? Why are non-Christians, non-Christians?

It's quite simple to my mind. The reason you don't believe Jesus is the son of God is the same as the reason you don't believe a whole raft of other things, namely: you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief. If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case. Whatever X may be.

Conversely, the reason why Christians believe is that they have evidence suffficient to sustain belief. That would also be a biblical take - there is no requirement for blind (evidential-less) faith.



-


The Bible appears to outline 2 stages to a persons initial salvation.

a) The first stage involves the person recognizing their need of salvation. 'Salvation' in this context means deliverence from a perceived dire need. It's the dire need's pressing down on a person that causes them to cry out for release from the pressure (although they might not realise that God exists at this point - given they might not have evidence for his existance). That crying out is accepted by God and they are saved*

b) Once saved, evidence of God's existance is given eg: the person now see's that Christ is real, the Bible is the word of God etc. The evidence is made available in the sense that the blindfold to that evidence is removed.


* a crying out in this context means full and final surrender. Along the way, people have the option of reliance on self to suppress and alleviate the pressure brought to bear on them by God. They might take drugs to mask it out. They might deny that their wrongdoing is wrong ("in this day and age it's alright to do as I do"). They might buy more stuff. They might work harder. They might channel hop to dull out their thoughts. They might engage in intellectual debate as if truth could be debated away from.

There are any number of ways to suppress truth. If a person wills it so, they can anesthetize the pain inflicted by truth (in the same way as they can anesthetize away the both the truth of a tootache and the message the toothache attempts to convey to us) until the day they die.

But not beyond that.



Edit

Strobe wrote:

]Before someone brings in free will, I do not believe that would contravene free will anymore than turning wine into water to convince people to believe would.

It wouldn't be the hardest of suppressions to kick to the touch of 'conjuring trick' Either then (when only some believed miracles to be miracles) or now.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's quite simple to my mind. The reason you don't believe Jesus is the son of God is the same as the reason you don't believe a whole raft of other things, namely: you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief. If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case. Whatever X may be.

"you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief"

No, it's that we haven't sufficient evidence to accept it as fact. Belief and faith exist in the absence of and sometimes in spite of evidence.

"If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case."

If you had convincing evidence then you wouldn't need belief because X would be demonstrably true.

Look, speaking as an atheist, (which I know is not what the OP wanted), the atheistic position is reasonably simple. It has been outlined before on various threads but for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to reiterate it. To do that I would like to quote two people who explained things far more eloquently than I can:

Bertrand Russell

"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy ask yourself only, what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out."

Atheists are perfectly content to say what they know and answer "I don't know" to everything else. We don't need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with mythology.

Richard Feynman

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

Perhaps therein lies the dichotomy between atheists and believers, the need to have answers.

Twin-go

The fact is that every man, woman and child on this planet are Athiest.

The Hindu is Athiest to all Gods/religions bar Hinduism. The Christian is Athiest to all Gods/religions bar Christianity.

For vast majority of people it is true to say that what religion they follow, what God(s) they believe in is mearly a function of geography and culture.

PDN

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, it's that we haven't sufficient evidence to accept it as fact. Belief and faith exist in the absence of and sometimes in spite of evidence.

That is a total misunderstanding of what Christian faith is. Faith is a belief that is based on evidence, but not on conclusive proof.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

That is a total misunderstanding of what Christian faith is. Faith is a belief that is based on evidence, but not on conclusive proof.

A bit like science really.

Twin-go

antiskeptic wrote: »

A bit like science really.

Not Really, different standards of evidence are required.

Science - High standards of evidence - measureability and repeatability are required for proof. And even then this is not confirmed as the absolute more the highly probable proof. (x+y=xy)

Religion - deals with less tangable evidence and suppositions and makes assumptions as facts. (x+y=z)

oldrnwisr

PDN wrote: »

That is a total misunderstanding of what Christian faith is. Faith is a belief that is based on evidence, but not on conclusive proof.

"Faith is a belief that is based on evidence"

Evidence such as ...? (in a Christian context)

"Conclusive proof" is a term that gets bandied about a lot by religious people and it usually get's tossed in our direction (scientists/atheists) as an accusatory statement: there's no conclusive proof for evolution. Maybe you could define what constitutes conclusive proof.

Fanny Cradock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"Faith is a belief that is based on evidence"

Evidence such as ...? (in a Christian context)

"Conclusive proof" is a term that gets bandied about a lot by religious people and it usually get's tossed in our direction (scientists/atheists) as an accusatory statement: there's no conclusive proof for evolution. Maybe you could define what constitutes conclusive proof.

There is no such thing as "conclusive proof" in science. And it's hardly a term exclusive to theists. With regards to Christianity, I gather that PDN was saying that faith (at its best) is based upon an investigation of the evidence available and not "conclusive proof". Antiskeptic may have waved a red flag but I think he was agreeing.

I don't see much point in defining a term that no one is applying to this discussion.

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief"

No, it's that we haven't sufficient evidence to accept it as fact. Belief and faith exist in the absence of and sometimes in spite of evidence.

The totality of the evidence convinces me that God is a fact. I'm not too worried by the fact that that same evidence isn't available to you too - there are reasons why this is so.

"If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case."

If you had convincing evidence then you wouldn't need belief because X would be demonstrably true.

The reason alluded to above places the problem of Gods apparent indemonstrability with you. The suggestion is that you are blind and can't actually see the evidence.

Would you accept this a possibility?

Bertrand Russell

"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy ask yourself only, what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out."

Check!

Perhaps he meant "empirically demonstrable facts" in which case I'd ask him (if he was alive) how we are to establish the claims of the empirical philosophy in an empirically factual way

Atheists are perfectly content to say what they know and answer "I don't know" to everything else. We don't need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with mythology.

You don't know that the Bible is myth (in those places suggested by the body Christianity not to be myth). If you don't know and are content to say that then why do you suggest that you do know (that it is myth)?

Richard Feynman

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

I agree - therefore I'm not that fussed about the whole end times debate. The trouble with this view is that it can apply to all knowledge, How do you know what you know is correct?

Zombrex

Faith is a belief based on trust rather than direct evidence.

I have faith my mum will pick me up from the train station because she said she would and I trust her.

is a different statement to

I have evidence my mum will pick me up from the train station because I can see her car pulling into the car park right now.

In relation to religion this is clearest in terms of heaven. None of you have ever been to heaven, have even seen heaven, have any physical heaven is a real place, can do any test (scientific or otherwise) to assess heaven.

You have faith that heaven exists because God tells you it does and you trust God. The question of justify that faith comes down to the reason you trust God. That claim can certainly be based on evidence, though I'm sure we can debate until the cows come in whether that evidence justifies such a belief.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

The reason alluded to above places the problem of Gods apparent indemonstrability with you. The suggestion is that you are blind and can't actually see the evidence.

Would you accept this a possibility?

In a word, no. For evidence to be considered valid it must be independently verifiable. If I see a talking snake for example, then it is necessary for everyone else to be able to see a talking snake as well in order for us to consider it evidence of the existence of a talking snake. I have to say though that this is a new twist on the logical fallacy of special pleading.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps he meant "empirically demonstrable facts" in which case I'd ask him (if he was alive) how we are to establish the claims of the empirical philosophy in an empirically factual way

He may have meant it but he didn't say it and it's what he actually said that matters. Speculation on a person's intent has limited usefulness.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't know that the Bible is myth

No, that's true but as the old saying goes: "if it walks like a duck...". I don't know that the bible is myth but the available scientific, historical and archaeological evidence indicates that it is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(in those places suggested by the body Christianity not to be myth)

Places such as...??

Since you think that I can't possibly know that the Bible is a myth, I'd love to know how you know how to separate the mythical parts from the non-mythical parts.

Besides, the use of the word suggested implies that you don't know either. However, you're filling in the gaps in your knowledge with faith which brings us back to the original argument.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Faith is a belief based on trust rather than direct evidence.

I have faith my mum will pick me up from the train station because she said she would and I trust her.

is a different statement to

I have evidence my mum will pick me up from the train station because I can see her car pulling into the car park right now.

In relation to religion this is clearest in terms of heaven. None of you have ever been to heaven, have even seen heaven, have any physical heaven is a real place, can do any test (scientific or otherwise) to assess heaven.

We can view it through a glass darkly (much as we can view the outer universe through a glass darkly). We can make certain inferances about life in heaven* by projecting in our minds an existance where there is, for example, no sin. This, because we can get glimpses of life without sin here (when we're not sinning )

* it would appear God's intent is to restore earth and dwell with man here - not that we're going off to some place called heaven.

You have faith that heaven exists because God tells you it does and you trust God. The question of justify that faith comes down to the reason you trust God. That claim can certainly be based on evidence, though I'm sure we can debate until the cows come in whether that evidence justifies such a belief.

Eternal life starts the day you're born (again). So too, experience of "heaven". It's not a question of nothing revealed until then - it's being revealed day by day.

But I take your point in the strictly technical sense.

richymcdermott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yNwEDtqjA

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can view it through a glass darkly (much as we can view the outer universe through a glass darkly). We can make certain inferances about life in heaven* by projecting in our minds an existance where there is, for example, no sin. This, because we can get glimpses of life without sin here (when we're not sinning )

* it would appear God's intent is to restore earth and dwell with man here - not that we're going off to some place called heaven.

That is sort of different, its like saying I have evidence that my mum will pick me up from the station because I can close my eyes and imagine what it would be like if she did.

It still requires trust that she will actually pick me up. You still have to trust God or the Bible to know what you are supposed to be imagining in the first place. Or put it another way, if you didn't trust God to tell you the truth why would you assume what you have been told about heaven (ie no sin) is correct, you haven't been to heaven to see if there actually is no sin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Eternal life starts the day you're born (again). So too, experience of "heaven". It's not a question of nothing revealed until then - it's being revealed day by day.

Not really, see example above. Being told what heaven is like by someone you trust is on the same as having direct evidence of what is like. Again if God's description is wrong then imagining its properties (ie no sin) is irrelevant.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, see example above. Being told what heaven is like by someone you trust is on the same as having direct evidence of what is like. Again if God's description is wrong then imagining its properties (ie no sin) is irrelevant.

You miss out a crucial element. Eternal life has already begun for me - begun on the day I was born again. Sure, there are elements of it I haven't seen yet (such as a restored earth or no sin and sickness) but I have already experienced sufficient of the destination to trust what is said is to come.

Sure, I must trust what God says about what is to come that hasn't yet been experienced. There's nothing new about trusting an extrapolation into frontiers unknown based on what has been experienced of the particular realm to date. Otherwise man would never have landed on the moon.

oldrnwisr

richymcdermott wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yNwEDtqjA

Garbled, confusing and quite frankly duller than an in-flight magazine produced by Air Belgium.

The commentator makes one unfounded assumption which breaks his whole argument: that God is the moral lawgiver.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You miss out a crucial element. Eternal life has already begun for me

Not really my point. Eternal life is different to heaven. Heaven is a place, eternal life is a state. Heaven is simply an element of that, one that is temporary as far as I gather from other Christians.

antiskeptic wrote: »

- begun on the day I was born again. Sure, there are elements of it I haven't seen yet (such as a restored earth or no sin and sickness) but I have already experienced sufficient of the destination to trust what is said is to come.

That is my point. You trust that you will eventually get to heaven and you trust what you are told about heaven. You don't think heaven will be a lake of fire and suffering, not because you have seen heaven but because you have been told about it.

This is faith. You can argue you have good reasons to trust God, but that isn't particularly relevant to my point, I wasn't arguing that trusting people is some how bad or wrong.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure, I must trust what God says about what is to come that hasn't yet been experienced. There's nothing new about trusting an extrapolation into frontiers unknown based on what has been experienced of the particular realm to date. Otherwise man would never have landed on the moon.

Man didn't land on the moon because someone told them it was ok to land on the moon or what the moon would be like. In fact up until the moment they landed NASA was still concerned that the lunar lander would sink into the lunar dust and be unable to take off again.

On the other hand if Neil Armstrong told me something about the lunar surface I would probably trust that what he was saying was accurate, even if there was no direct evidence to confirm this, because I would consider him honorable and in possession of such knowledge. I have faith in the stories of Neil Armstrong, including when he says his words were 'One small step for a man...'

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The commentator makes one unfounded assumption which breaks his whole argument: that God is the moral lawgiver.

He doesn't assume God is the moral lawgiver. He assumes only God could be the moral lawgiver. It certainly can't be us - unless one's mans good is permitted to be anothers evil.

In which case there is no such thing as good and evil - only relative good and evil.

Which was his point

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

He doesn't assume God is the moral lawgiver. He assumes only God could be the moral lawgiver. It certainly can't be us - unless one's mans good is permitted to be anothers evil.

In which case there is no such thing as good and evil - only relative good and evil.

Which was his point

"He assumes only God could be the moral lawgiver."

No he asserts that God is the lawgiver. He says "the question self-destructs unless there is a God.

"It certainly can't be us - unless one's mans good is permitted to be anothers evil."

It certainly can be us. Morality is dictated by society and is in essence an emergent property of civilisation. No society could progress beyond a certain point without establishing codes of moral behaviour. You can believe if you'd like that whatever deity you've chosen to worship is the source of that law but again you crash into real evidence.

One man's good is quite frequently another's evil particularly where Christianity is concerned.

From a letter issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil

We don't all consider homosexual acts to be evil and most people would consider the idea of two people who love each other expressing such love to be good.

Zombrex

richymcdermott wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yNwEDtqjA

An argument that has been refuted so many times it hardly bears repeating.

Its things that like that cause atheists to say (unfairly) that theists are stupid. Any theists with any shred of respect for rationality should be distancing themselves from this sort of illogical nonsense.

Soul Winner

strobe wrote: »

So why does someone who hears the Gospel and still doesn't believe not believe? Shouldn't there not be some 'miraculous power' in it so that people will believe.

The Bible teaches that the same words bring life to some and death to others.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor 18-21 (Italics mine)

It has always puzzled me how some can believe easily and yet others find it impossible. If Christians cannot understand it then I doubt anything put forth in this thread will do anything to make non-believers understand it either. It is what it is...

richymcdermott

Wicknight wrote: »

An argument that has been refuted so many times it hardly bears repeating.

Its things that like that cause atheists to say (unfairly) that theists are stupid. Any theists with any shred of respect for rationality should be distancing themselves from this sort of illogical nonsense.

i just posted this up for someone else views, i find it interesting other peoples views than my own

Memnoch

antiskeptic wrote: »

He doesn't assume God is the moral lawgiver. He assumes only God could be the moral lawgiver. It certainly can't be us - unless one's mans good is permitted to be anothers evil.

In which case there is no such thing as good and evil - only relative good and evil.

Which was his point

While God's moral lawgiving is interpreted and dispensed by men, good and evil will remain relative.

Which is not a surprising revelation considering how countless 'Christian Values,' that we were told were the word and law of God, have been and, continue to be abandoned by those who purport to represent this word over the past few centuries and indeed, throughout history.